 |
Modes Of Production |
| |
We may well argue, on the other hand,
that the kinds of social relations in which humans are involved
when appropriating natural resources differ from one society to
another. And this brings me to modes of production. The kinds of
attributes one adopts as criteria of classification of modes of
production and subsistence depend on the theory informing the analysis.
However, reasoned anthropological comparison and informed environmental
decision-making necessitate both that the units of comparison be
established on some logical basis and that they be critically examined
and refined from time to time. Everyday classifications, as Hewes
remarked year ago (Hewes 1948:238), need to be critically examined
and refined every now and then, if only 'to reassure their users
that they are more than accidental classifications, and are valid
rubrics beyond our own language or culture'. One of the significant
social differences in fishing systems concerns the nature of production
units, their organisation, and the motives of the producers. A distinction
can be made between household producers, capitalistic firms, and
simple commodity producers. |
| |
In household economies, the 'domestic
mode of production' (Sahlins 1972), production is motivated by the
subsistence needs of the domestic unit. The household unit is never
a completely self-sufficient one, but given the emphasis on use
values and livelihood, production is set low and, consequently,
resources are often under-used. Summing up the evidence in relation
to hunter-gatherers, Barnard and Woodburn argue that the theory
has stood up well to ethnographic research, emphasising that it
is not wants that are set low but production targets (1988:12).
The theory of the domestic mode of production was developed by Chayanov
in relation to peasant economies. Chayanov's theory predicts that
there is a 'natural' limit to peasant production in that the intensity
of labour is proportional to the total needs of the household, including
the ratio of consumers to workers, taxes, and debts. Some economic
anthropologists have made use of Chyanov's theory in relation to
fishing (see, for example, Jorion 1984). |
| |
In the second kind of production system
mentioned, in capitalist production, production is motivated by
the accumulation of profit and capital, and production targets are
indefinite. In this case, fishing crews are unlikely to be organized
on the basis of kinship and friendship. What matters, from the point
of view of the producer, are abstract exchange values, not concrete
goods or use values. The capitalist firm is, therefore, usually
very responsive to changes in the relative profitability of fishing
and processing. If the profitability of a particular fishery goes
down, the company is likely to transfer some of its capital to another
fishery, to processing facilities, or some other enterprise. |
| |
There are some grounds for arguing
that nowadays, and for much of recent history, there is only one
mode of production, the capitalist one. Practically all production
is somehow involved in the world capitalist economy. Some production
systems, however, can neither be described as peasant households
nor as capitalist firms. In the anthropological literature they
are often referred to as 'simple commodity production'. McCay summarizes
their characteristics as follows (1981: 2-3): |
| |
Their systems of production are based
on relatively small-scale, simple technology; work groups organized
around kinship, friendship, or temporary collegiality but with little
difference between owners and laborers; widespread sharing of costs,
risks, benefits, and windfalls; and a variable subsistence/market
allocation of production. |
| |
Such systems have often been associated
with agriculture (see Cook 1982), but they can also be found in
whale hunting (Cassell 1988) and fishing (McCay 1981, Russell and
Poopetch 1990). The simple commodity producer shares the characteristics
of the fishing peasant in one important respect. In both cases family
members pool their resources, capital and labour. By pooling available
resources the producer safeguards himself against the vulnerability
of the business. Market conditions fluctuate, the productivity of
fishing differs from one season to another, and the need for labour
varies with season and fishing gear. One of the barriers to converting
a small family business into a company is precisely the difficulty
in responding to such fluctuations, while at the same time responding
to the demands of the labour market. Skippers who own boats do not
have to pay salaries every week. The absentee-owner, in contrast,
must conform to the formal demands of labour unions for immediate
payments in order to keep his workers. The extent to which the simple
commodity producer is able to draw upon the labour of his family,
however, varies with its composition and stage in the development
cycle. The skipper-owners who are the most vulnerable are those
who have no sons or whose sons are too young to join them. |
| |
Simple commodity production, then,
is highly adaptive in times of financial difficulties. For the individual
producer, it is enough to survive the year and hope for better luck
next year. Many skipper-owners form share-holding companies, together
with family members, in order to prevent total loss of property
in case of bankruptcy. Unlike absentee owners, the capitalists,
skipper-owners continue to invest when fishing ceases to be profitable,
but unlike peasant fishermen they do accumulate capital when it
is possible to increase returns. Such differences in organisation
are likely to correlate with differences in perception of environmental
problems. Although the contrast is by no means a stark one, the
skipper-owners are more likely than the absentee owners to define
environmental conditions as problematic and to take direct collective
action to redress the balance. |
|
Previous
Chapter 